Roy Mathew v. P.P.Benny
Case brief
What is this about?
In a contempt proceeding, the Court held that no contempt was made out as the 2nd respondent could not disburse amounts before the Government issued a letter of credit. As the earlier judgment did not explicitly direct disbursement within a time frame, the case was closed.
What did the court decide?
The contempt case is closed with no specific directions issued.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/15TH POUSHA, 1937
Con.Case(C).No. 1725 of 2015 (S) IN WP(C).24409/2015
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 24409/2015 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 12-08-2015
PETITIONER(S):
ROY MATHEW AGED 52 YEARS
S/O MATHEW, GOVERNEMENT CONTRACTOR, PAMPLANIYIL HOUSE BHARANGANGANAM PO., PALA-VIA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT
BY ADVS.SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.P.T.ABHILASH
RESPONDENT(S):
- P.P.BENNY
AGE AND NAME OF THE FATHER ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PEITIONER WORKING AS SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the failure of the respondent to disburse amounts before the Government's letter of credit amounts to contempt of court given the lower court judgment.
Whether there was a specific direction in the earlier judgment regarding the disbursement of amounts within a stipulated time.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Roy Mathew
- respondent
P.P. Benny
- respondent
B.S. Shekhawat
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court